December, leaving aside the points you made earlier, which I thought were deliberately mischaracteristic of Mhendo’s arguments, your statement above is only half right.
What Mhendo has been trying valiantly to explain here is that understanding people’s motivation requires not only a deep understanding of them but also of any factors that may influence them. Such factors could, and do, originate from the US.
I do not intend to justify the barbaric actions of Sept 11, but simply because something this horrible has happened it is not a good idea to forsake introspection and assume that the innocent victim is always 100 percent in the right come what may. US foreign policy has a very dubious history, and the study of it, as well as the study of the suspects in this crime, will lead to invaluable information and even clues in this investigation against terrorism.
(and that’s why I made my appeal to refrain from blaming the “tallest poppy” effect in the previous page)
I have found threads of the “Why do they hate us?” variety to be disconcertingly common at the Straight Dope. I don’t know how many people would have already seen the link below but it’s here now because it’s one of the best about “Why They Should NOT Hate You”.
Causes: lack of a free press; government propaganda. Effects: anything America does is wrong.
Well, come on, we’re talking about an area of the world that wasn’t without its conflicts to begin with. Had America not done anything they would be considered guilty of inaction. And of course, in any conflict, if a country takes a side you’ve just pissed off 50% of the combatants. As sides continue to change even without America’s influence the amount of people pissed off approaches 100%.
I don’t believe I have done this.
Enforce existing national borders: check. Promote peaceful resolutions between regimes which are at least partly capable of it: check. Fight with those who don’t accept peace as a resolution: check. What am I missing here?
I don’t believe you are trying to justify them, except by asking me to look at it from their perspective and see why they might think their actions are justified. To which I still reply: I don’t see it. I find no rational explanation other than they are not rationally deciding their actions. What sort of irrational assumptions are they making? That their brand of radical isolationism is a good thing. I disagree.
I’d like to point out that the perpetrators of this crime have not taken responsibility for the act, nor have they even suggested what course of action would prevent any such future acts. This suggests to me that they are not really interested in the US actually changing their foreign policy.
I think that their hatred of us is not based on any particular policy, but is because we have a policy, and act on it. Our mere presence in the area (heck, our presence on the earth) is an affront to OBL. He wants to destroy us, plain and simple.
Understanding the why suggests that we could’ve changed our policy to appease him, or that a ‘better’ policy would’ve prevented this. I don’t believe that is the case.
As they said in Goldfinger
James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
Auric Goldfinger: No Mr. Bond! I expect you to die!
I’m glad to see that we agree on the first point, Abe. Your second point is worth considering.
First of all, I would ask you to clarify your second sentence by adding quantifiers. E.g. do you mean:
ALL such factors originate from the US…?
AT LEAST ONE such factor…?
THE MOST IMPORTANT such factors…?
Second, how do you propose to determine which factors actually motivated the Taliban? Does it not require deep understanding the Taliban? As far as I can see, **mhendo **has been simply making assumptions or guesss about how various US actions influenced the Taliban.
Third, knowing the factors (if we ever do) may not do any good. E.g., suppose the factors causing the Taliban to consider the US to be the “Great Satan” include such “sinful” behavior as:
– failing to execute Jews and gays
– allowing women to learn to read
– failing to execute women who commit adultory.
– tolerating belief in the wrong religion, and even atheism.
These would be consistent with the Taliban’s statements and behavior. Obviously, we wouldn’t change to an Islamic theocracy in order to placate them.
Fourth, consider two approaches:
Understand how US activities influence the Taliban’s belief about us and then understand how we could change our activities so that the Taliban would stop killing us, or
Understand what US activities would get the Taliban to stop killing us.
#1 may well be impossible to achieve. But, seeking understanding can be a way to justify doing nothing. #2 is a lot more straightforward. We try different actions and see which ones lead to fewer attacks.
In short, I’ve been assuming that the plea for understanding was a combination of US-bashing and support for inaction. I’ve not been convinced otherwise.
First I will admit to not having read the whole thread, so I apologize if I am rehashing an argument here.
Aomeone mentioned as a complaint that the focus was too much on the US and not on other countries, like China, etc. But it seems to me that too often the focus is on the “crimes” the US has committed with very little mention of how the US is probably the most generous nation in the history of the world. I don’t really have numbers, so someone is more than welcome to prove me worng, but I would be surprised if another nation has ever dispensed as much humanitarian aid. Add to this the fact that the US has actively tried to promote growth in countries it was at war with. I supose there are those who would ascribe a sinister motive to all this, but it seems to me that we simply want prosperous countries with which to have peacefula nd profitibal relationships with.
I already posted the figures for economical aid in another thread (figures taken from the CIA site). The US is the least generous country amongst the western nations, in %age of the GNP, and by far (0,07% of the GNP for the US, usually between 0,3% and 1% for the other western countries). In global amount (6,3 billions $, I believe), it’s the third giver (after Japan and Germany) at the same level than France (with a population 4 or 5 times more important). The most generous western countries in %age of GNP are the scandinavian countries.
I’m sorry to say this, but this kind of genuine and baseless positive assumptions (I mean the assuption that the US must be the best, even without any knowledge of the facts) is the main source fueling the feeling that the americans have an arrogant “hollier than you” attitude. I mean, usually, people know a fact first, and then boast about their country’s achievments second. It’s quite common on internet boards that some american poster states that their country is the best from any point of view without even bothering to check if it’s true or not.
It’s especially infuriating when (like in this case) the reverse is true (the US gives less than anybody else, instead of more than anybody else) and that this well-known fact (outside the US at least) is a source of criticism against the US in other countries (why the US, which are so wealthy are giving so little aid?). Stop wondering why US mainstream medias are accused to spread some sort of propaganda.
Just checked again the CIA site. The figures have changed (and the presentation of the site too). The more recent figures for economical aid (in amount) for the countries I cited are :
So the US are now the second giver, not the third. But still way below the other western nations proportionnally, by head and even more in %age of the GNP.
The most generous donnor seems to be Denmark with 1,2% of the GNP (US : 0,07%) and 304 /head (US : 25 /head)accounting for 1,3 billion $.
I think when people are talking about America’s generosity, they aren’t just talking about last year’s cumulative aid total, or even the last five years. They are talking about U.S. actions since the turn of the century.
When people speak about american policies, I doubt they’re refering to its policies 50 years ago. Let alone at the turn of the century…
Though what is exactly relevant when considering the present day policy of a state (as opposed to a mere historical background) is an interesting issue…On a question like this one “What crimes the US, etc…” how far back should we go? I tend to think in generations (considered as 25 years, usually). I would include the 25 last years as certainly relevant, the period between 25-50 years as dubious (a lot of victims or beneficiaries are still alive, but people who took the decision are mostly dead, and situation/policies have probably changed), 50-75 as mostly historical (people who were adults at this time are mostly dead or very old) and more than 75 years as definitely historical (the oldest people still alive were only children at this time).
Of course, the more I think about it (it isn’t the first time), the more I’m unsure. For instance, I’m not sure that the modern US should be blamed/congratulated for an action (say organizing a coup in some country) executed during the 50’s. On the other hand, someone who is still alive (say a Jew deported in the 40’s) certainly should be indemnized now. What about the grandchildren of a Palestinian expelled in the 40’s and since long dead?
Should France apologize for the Algeria war 50 years ago? Certainly. For having colonized Algeria 170 years ago? I don’t think it makes a lot of sense. It’s more a matter for historians. What about the African countries asking for apologies/indemnizations for the slave trade? Should the current Turkish government apologizes for the Armenian Genocide which took place 100 years ago when Turkey was still a monarchy? On the other hand, the Turkish government seems to think it’s relevant, since it refuses to admit that the genocide actually took place.
I meant such factors. Exactly which ones and how many remain to be determined with precision. I agree it is illogical to assume that acts of terrorism such as Sept 11 are solely a reaction to US policy. Terrorists are deluded and angry people, and they need very little in the way of reason to continue along the path of their delusion. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that certain US policies do anger the rest of the world or specific regions. The most popular example concerning this part of the region is probably US almost unconditional support of Israel. This could be such a factor.
There’s an Umberto Eco essay (the title escapes me, but it was in Italian) in which he rants about how some kids in NY zoo thought the polar bears were really cute and cuddly, so they hopped into the enclosure to play with them and were mauled to death. Eco’s point was that the children’s parents and society must shoulder part of the blame for the tragedy, because the children lacked proper understanding and respect for real polar bears. All they saw were giant stuffed toys, and they paid for their innocence, tragically.
Now, I am not sure in exactly what ways we need to look at the Taliban here. I do not believe there is evidence yet that has established the Taliban as the culprits of the atrocity. But understanding why the Taliban, for example, refused to hand over Bin Laden requires examination of the Taliban and of US policy pertaining to the Middle East. The US is by no means a neutral power in that region. This does not excuse fanatics or terrorists, of course.
Relevant knowledge is never useless. The Taliban may have an extremely skewed point of view, but that is not to say that all their objections are without merit (for example, US support of Israel). Again, this kind of knowledge will not only aid in the present investigation (every crime requires a motive, often more than one), but may also give civilized governments advance warning of future acts of terror. Any intelligence-gathering exercise into terrorism that fails to take into account why a number of people feel so strongly about the US is doomed from the start.
Change is a possibility, but not necessarily required. It’s analysis that is especially important. The knowledge of which US policies offend groups X, Y, and Z will contribute to intelligence in the greater picture, and intelligence helps to defuse dangerous situations or prevent terrorist attacks. Certainly, some policies could stand to be reviewed, such as (again) US support of Israel, but introspection does not necessarily mean change. On the other hand, awareness of all the factors is invaluable in any situation, including military or diplomatic.
Diplomacy is probably the final answer. I certainly believe specific groups need to be punished (the Taliban for providing support for terrorists for example), but in the end diplomatic relations will be established and will keep the peace. Eventually.
That’s a false assumption. There are many things about the US that need to be reviewed carefully: the tendency towards unilateralism, for example, or corporate influence, or the alienation of several countries where Islam is the dominant religion.
Criticism is not the same thing as bashing, although in such sensitive moments most people will jump to that conclusion to defend themselves aginst what they perceive is an attack. Such criticisms, certainly in this thread, are not attacks, but valuable suggestions that are being put forward to improve the situation and decrease the chances of the WTC tragedy happening again.